Poll of the Day > It looks like Snopes is getting fed up about being labeled HYPER-LIBERAL lately.

(+) Yeah! (+)

For "fact-checking" sites like Snopes, it's critical to make sure you have no bias or slant. But lately, Snopes has been getting much more skepticism as a left-leaning source of information, rather than the neutral source they CLAIM to be. So, out-of-the-blue, they recently published an in-depth article about the different types of lies AGAINST Trump.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/12/trump-lies/

Granted they're not trying to defend him, per se. But, as a TL;DR - They're just pointing out that the "confirmation bias" cuts both ways (from each side of the political fence; left or right).

Very interesting stuff.
---

Trump supporters hate facts, and prefer "alternative facts" (aka lies) so will accuse anyone that doesn't blindly accept their God-Emperor's claims as "truth" of being "liberal" (here's looking at you, @Zeus...)
---

shipwreckers posted...

Granted they're not trying to defend him, per se. But, as a TL;DR - They're just pointing out that the "confirmation bias" cuts both ways (from each side of the political fence; left or right).

The problem is, when you only publish that as an attempt to "prove" that you're not biased, after you've already been accused of bias, it doesn't really prove much of anything at all.

Now, if they could have gone back and pointed out previously published articles from before/during the accusations that show lack of bias, they'd have a better case.

But honestly, regardless of their "it's critical to make sure you have no bias or slant" line, the problem is that everyone has a bias. And plenty of times, those people don't even notice their bias (or the bias of people with similar biases to them).

If anything, their panicked "Look, we can shit on the other side, too!" defense just makes me assume they have bias even more than I otherwise would have. Because now they just look way more guilty.



TyVulpine posted...

Trump supporters hate facts, and prefer "alternative facts" (aka lies)

You've just described partisans on both sides of the political aisle (and the ones off to the sides and dangling from the lunatic fringe as well).

If you think the Left doesn't engage in that sort of thing absolutely as much as the Right does, then you're already wearing your officially approved blinders and only seeing what you want to see.

As I've pointed out on this board countless times before, it's always harder to see bias that looks like your own. And your own biases are the harder to see of all.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Trump supporters hate facts, and prefer "alternative facts" (aka lies)

You've just described partisans on both sides of the political aisle (and the ones off to the sides and dangling from the lunatic fringe as well).

While all sides do it, Trump is especially blatant about rallying his supporters against any opposing media.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

shipwreckers posted...

Granted they're not trying to defend him, per se. But, as a TL;DR - They're just pointing out that the "confirmation bias" cuts both ways (from each side of the political fence; left or right).

The problem is, when you only publish that as an attempt to "prove" that you're not biased, after you've already been accused of bias, it doesn't really prove much of anything at all.

Now, if they could have gone back and pointed out previously published articles from before/during the accusations that show lack of bias, they'd have a better case.

But honestly, regardless of their "it's critical to make sure you have no bias or slant" line, the problem is that everyone has a bias. And plenty of times, those people don't even notice their bias (or the bias of people with similar biases to them).

If anything, their panicked "Look, we can shit on the other side, too!" defense just makes me assume they have bias even more than I otherwise would have. Because now they just look way more guilty.

It does seem like a desperation move on their part. As you said, the bias is going to be there whether they admit it or not. Pretty much every news / info source out there is going to CLAIM to be unbiased (even the likes of CNN and Breitbart). But, since confirmation bias is something that happens in a natural, often undetectable manner, I sometimes wonder if it's even humanly possible to ever have a truly OBJECTIVE information source.

Heck, even our dictionaries have bias (comparing the same exact word between Webster vs. Oxford vs. Caimbridge, etc.)
---

There's a difference between allowing a bias to influence how you interpret events, and claiming that anyone who fails to lick the shit out of your leader's ass and say it tastes like chocolate is by definition a liar who must be exposed, smeared and destroyed.
---

I'm gonna get my popcorn ready for when the typical political arguments start.
---

TyVulpine posted...

Trump supporters hate facts, and prefer "alternative facts" (aka lies) so will accuse anyone that doesn't blindly accept their God-Emperor's claims as "truth" of being "liberal" (here's looking at you, @Zeus...)

You don't think the FBI is allowed to arrest people.

shipwreckers posted...

For "fact-checking" sites like Snopes, it's critical to make sure you have no bias or slant. But lately, Snopes has been getting much more skepticism as a left-leaning source of information, rather than the neutral source they CLAIM to be. So, out-of-the-blue, they recently published an in-depth article about the different types of lies AGAINST Trump.

The fact that they're left-leaning has never really been a big secret. However, they didn't catch flack for it because it's a slight bias and because they didn't seem to touch that much on politics until the last few years or so. Usually the entirety of their political input was just debunking silly memes, like the claim that Trump said he'd run as a Republican because those voters were stupid Fox News viewers which was attributed to him at a time when Fox News wasn't popular.

TyVulpine posted...

Trump supporters hate facts, and prefer "alternative facts" (aka lies) so will accuse anyone that doesn't blindly accept their God-Emperor's claims as "truth" of being "liberal" (here's looking at you, @ Zeus...)

Given that you're probably at the bottom of the barrel for getting facts right even by shitposting standards, you shouldn't accuse anybody of anything ever. Cacciato pointed out that you claimed that the FBI couldn't arrest people, but you've always said that tariffs are unconstitutional -- despite being widely practiced by the early US government and used as recently as decades ago -- among other complete nonsense which any fact-checker would take less than a minute to debunk @TyVulpine

Lightning Bolt posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Trump supporters hate facts, and prefer "alternative facts" (aka lies)

You've just described partisans on both sides of the political aisle (and the ones off to the sides and dangling from the lunatic fringe as well).

While all sides do it, Trump is especially blatant about rallying his supporters against any opposing media.

He's bigger on calling out complete bullshit, which is something that candidates and politicians should have been doing more strongly. There's always been a certain gulf between the truth and what the media gives us, but it's been getting worse in recent decades (albeit that might be more the result of the availability independent sources to debunk wrong claims).

Also keep in mind that he has more critics willing to bend the truth to smear him than previous candidates. Obama, for instance, only worried about a handful of media outlets -- which, by the way, he either called or referred to as fake news at times; Obama was also big on limiting press access and using social media to bypass the press. Who does that sound like?
---

Why bother? Anyone who believes snopes is a useful site already uses it and anyone who doesn't just claims fake news and won't be persuaded by anything on there anyway.

knivesX2004 posted...

Why bother? Anyone who believes snopes is a useful site already uses it and anyone who doesn't just claims fake news and won't be persuaded by anything on there anyway.

Because it matters. A negative perception could reduce their readership and limit the influx of new readers, thus hurting their site. Honestly, unless you're virtue-signalling to build a dedicated audience, it doesn't make sense to weigh in on most political matters given the divisiveness of politics.
---

I'd heard Snopes went downhill after the previously husband and wife team split up after the dude was banging a hooker or something.
---

Straight Dope was always the better site anyway.


---

Trump says some harsh things, people don't always like it, then it becomes "Cheetos face" comments and other petty swipes. Granted, he's guilty of them himself, but the left needs to get kicked off its high horse already. They're just as petty as their opponents, only more violent (ironically).
---